The game really clicked with me. It brought me back to the '90s and to my childhood reading Lobo comics (which have the same type of humor).

It's a normal human reaction to get angry when someone hates on something you love.

Great, that's fine, I don't mind that you like the game, I'm sure if I listed some of my favorite games you could find some you absolutely hated and rag on me for liking them.

Doesn't change that you are blaming IGN for something with no actual proof IGN had anything to do with it. A normal human reaction doesn't mean you just get to spew things unchallenged against anyone that draws your ire.

I just wasted 10 minutes watching the Dev Youtube video announcing the new patch, the dialogue change gets one brief second mention at the end, and its framed as a way to attract people to the game that might be turned off by the overly antagonistic tutorial. Part of the reason they are doing this seems to be because the game is bleeding players, and they specifically mention doing it for a short period of time to see if fewer players drop the game and that they would look into changing it back in a week or two, given the data they have available they are probably seeing an unusually high number of players dropping the game in the tutorial.

The announcer change doesn't seem to effect his basic jokes, only his overly long anecdotes. Something I can see people complained about on the forums, specifically asking for a way to make the long repetitive stories stop. Even if you find things like the t-rex boner joke funny, its too long to remain entertaining for a lot of people after the first couple dozen matches. The content of the story is largely irrelevant, hearing the same 30 second voice clip is going to get old if it isn't actually announcing anything relevant to the match itself.

It seems like they are experimenting with complaints the players themselves are voicing, and are fully willing to change them back if it doesn't work, that does not strike me as a company caving to offended people, more them trying to save a game that looks like its going to give Evolve a run for its money in how fast the playerbase drops the game.

Whats with the implication that criticism means you didn't understand it? Especially with crude/shock/offensive humour. Its a polarizing style of comedy, which people can fully understand and just not be a fan of.

If the dev changed the game based on that feedback, that's the decision/problem of the dev, not the reviewer for having an opinion on something intentionally provocative. But then you seem pretty 'fanboy' in your follow up comments, so I'm guessing holding the dev accountable isn't high on a list of things which will happen for you.

It seems like they are experimenting with complaints the players themselves are voicing, and are fully willing to change them back if it doesn't work, that does not strike me as a company caving to offended people, more them trying to save a game that looks like its going to give Evolve a run for its money in how fast the playerbase drops the game.

So, how did you decide people don't play this game? The bad reviews, I bet?

But yeah, even if the game has a good playerbase now, I hope the drop you mention happens. There has been ONE newly released game I actually want to play, and it's this one. It must die as I must learn never to find a good videogame again.

That game's attitude is all about immature, crass, funny humor - not because it's stupid, but because it's the art style of the game pretty much like Mortal Kombat's hyperviolence is part of that game's style.

Just in the tutorial, the drawing of a dissectioned frog insults you in all possible ways.

And during the game, the announcer makes comments about his raging erection or about how bad you are at playing.

Well, apparently some IGN moron didn't understand the concept of "style" and called the game offensive.

In the latest patch, the game's main dev, David Jaffe (of God Of War and Twisted Metal fame) announced that they were changing the frog's comments to be less offensive and that they were tuning down what the announcer said during the game.

That's as if, back in the '90s, the Mortal Kombat developers decided to completely remove the violence from their game because certain people complained about it.

David gaffe is the type of guy who doesn't care about pissing off people.

Wow, that's one of the ugliest games I've ever seen... and I played Papers, Please.

Also, someone posted a video here and I was skipping around it and the reviewer pretty much sums it up "Nothing about this offends me, I just think it's stupid." And it really is. It's just embarrassingly bad.

There's also a "meme" I guess? that says "I'LL KEEL YOUR FAAAACE!!" and some shitty sprites, and the character is some sharklady in a thong, what the hell is this... It's just trying so hard. Is this supposed to be cool, or funny? I mean, I don't care if the game is offensive, the T-Rex boner line isn't even offensive, it's just bad.

The guy complaining about the game in the video makes it funny. The game itself... I'm pretty sure I don't have PS+ anymore, and even if I did... no thanks.

So sure, if the developer thinks he can change some of this and make it better, why not?

Death Carr:I don't know how to broach thison one hand, I think that no creator should "give in" to criticism and change something to please criticson the other hand, I think that creators should listen to criticism and take that criticism to heat (to a degree)

I think that games need to change to match the times they're created inso for the modern day, where people have actually learned that being unnecessarily offensive isn't the best way to attract people to your title, maybe tone down the 90s style over the top offensivenessbecause it isn't the 90s anymore

I am sorry you are right.

In the 90s people made poop and sex jokes.

Modern kids want antisemitic jokes.

They should have replaced the boner dialogue with a "kill all Jews" line. Or maybe an internet meme. Or Donald Trump.

We have EVOLVED you guys.

I mean

I don't recall mentioning antisemitismor memesor donald trump

But I think I misunderstood what you consider offensivecause in your other thread you talked about the game being offensive and so thats what I thought it wasbut it sounds like the game is just juvenileso idkmaybe people think games should be a mature mediumor maybe David Jaffe agreed that it was too over the top and annoyingand so he toned down the content to match

Wintermute:Wow, that's one of the ugliest games I've ever seen... and I played Papers, Please.

Also, someone posted a video here and I was skipping around it and the reviewer pretty much sums it up "Nothing about this offends me, I just think it's stupid." And it really is. It's just embarrassingly bad.

There's also a "meme" I guess? that says "I'LL KEEL YOUR FAAAACE!!" and some shitty sprites, and the character is some sharklady in a thong, what the hell is this... It's just trying so hard. Is this supposed to be cool, or funny? I mean, I don't care if the game is offensive, the T-Rex boner line isn't even offensive, it's just bad.

The guy complaining about the game in the video makes it funny. The game itself... I'm pretty sure I don't have PS+ anymore, and even if I did... no thanks.

So sure, if the developer thinks he can change some of this and make it better, why not?

So, since I LOVE the style of the game, and the sharklady in a thong is my favorite character, does it mean I am stupid? Juvenile?

No, it just means my tastes are not yours.

I think South Park and Family Guy are horrible and depressing, with disgusting drawings and negative messages.

Yet hey, millions of people apparently find those "funny".

This is For Honor all over again. Apparently I am quite literally the only person in this forum who has certain tastes. From now on, when someone here says a game is bad, I'm going to try it out immediately - I'll probably love it.

Nature Guardian:Apparently I am quite literally the only person in this forum who has certain tastes. From now on, when someone here says a game is bad, I'm going to try it out immediately - I'll probably love it.

While you're at it, how about that link?

Or maybe, I should phrase it differently: "Man, you'd totally HATE providing proof for what you said!"

So the question that really should be addressed is "where is the line between responding to valid criticism and pandering to outside pressure to change to be drawn?"

How do we tell one from the other? Why are we immediately jumping to one conclusion over another? To me it seems like people have their camps set up ahead of time on these things and don't want to actually examine the elements that influence these decisions.

Unless the creator says it himself how about we not jump to the worst possible conclusions?

The stuff about the game's humor is in the second half of the article. Interestingly, the author's objections to it are less about it being offensive overall and more that it was overbearingly mean-spirited.

The stuff about the game's humor is in the second half of the article. Interestingly, the author's objections to it are less about it being offensive overall and more that it was overbearingly mean-spirited.

I find this game to be CHEERFUL, not offensive.

Do you know whats offensive? South Park. Family Guy. Pewdiepie and most youtube personalities.

And I think that is the issue. This game is not mean-spirited. It has a kind of naivety that worked in the 90s, not in today's society which is equally overly sensitive and in need of the cruelest provocations.

I have played today and found out they changed the line in which the announcer says "man, last place.... you should probably consider suicide at this point" into a politically correct "man, last place..... that must feel horrible".

The stuff about the game's humor is in the second half of the article. Interestingly, the author's objections to it are less about it being offensive overall and more that it was overbearingly mean-spirited.

I find this game to be CHEERFUL, not offensive.

Do you know whats offensive? South Park. Family Guy. Pewdiepie and most youtube personalities.

And I think that is the issue. This game is not mean-spirited. It has a kind of naivety that worked in the 90s, not in today's society which is equally overly sensitive and in need of the cruelest provocations.

I have played today and found out they changed the line in which the announcer says "man, last place.... you should probably consider suicide at this point" into a politically correct "man, last place..... that must feel horrible".

The stuff about the game's humor is in the second half of the article. Interestingly, the author's objections to it are less about it being offensive overall and more that it was overbearingly mean-spirited.

I find this game to be CHEERFUL, not offensive.

Do you know whats offensive? South Park. Family Guy. Pewdiepie and most youtube personalities.

And I think that is the issue. This game is not mean-spirited. It has a kind of naivety that worked in the 90s, not in today's society which is equally overly sensitive and in need of the cruelest provocations.

I have played today and found out they changed the line in which the announcer says "man, last place.... you should probably consider suicide at this point" into a politically correct "man, last place..... that must feel horrible".

Pussies.

"This game is CHEERFUL"

"The game actively encourages players to commit suicide "

????

Hard to explain if you havent played it. Context is everything.

Imagine the phrase "you asshole!". Without context, it's an insult.In the context between two friends, when one makes a comment to joke, the other friend may answer "you asshole!" while laughing.

Lets see personally I like that jackass and that tutorial had the best troll moment ever so kudos for that. Also the my problem with the announcer he talked tooooooooooooooooooooooooo much. Not the content but the voice just got grating.

The real problems with the game are character balance cause Ed Gein Mickey Mouse and Diabla tend to murk in matches. And the weapon balance is a joke. Top 5 weapons laser gun, laser gun, laser gun, laser gun and laser gun. I love the look like I can pick out in a crowd easy but damn some gameplay mechanic change up would be helpful.

Jarrito3001:Lets see personally I like that jackass and that tutorial had the best troll moment ever so kudos for that. Also the my problem with the announcer he talked tooooooooooooooooooooooooo much. Not the content but the voice just got grating.

The real problems with the game are character balance cause Ed Gein Mickey Mouse and Diabla tend to murk in matches. And the weapon balance is a joke. Top 5 weapons laser gun, laser gun, laser gun, laser gun and laser gun. I love the look like I can pick out in a crowd easy but damn some gameplay mechanic change up would be helpful.

For about two weeks I only ever used the JRPG because of the homing missiles, however I now discovered other weapons can offer more - they are just more difficult to use.

Nature Guardian:not in today's society which is equally overly sensitive and in need of the cruelest provocations.

Oh, OK, let's see if I can express my self better: "You fucking suck at providing any source to your words. I'm not even mad, I'm disappointed - that's quite a feat, when my expectations were literally rock bottom, but you somehow managed to go even lower. Go fucking kill yourself, you loser."

Do you know whats offensive? South Park. Family Guy. Pewdiepie and most youtube personalities.

And I think that is the issue. This game is not mean-spirited. It has a kind of naivety that worked in the 90s, not in today's society which is equally overly sensitive and in need of the cruelest provocations.

I have played today and found out they changed the line in which the announcer says "man, last place.... you should probably consider suicide at this point" into a politically correct "man, last place..... that must feel horrible".

Pussies.

"This game is CHEERFUL"

"The game actively encourages players to commit suicide "

????

Hard to explain if you havent played it. Context is everything.

Imagine the phrase "you asshole!". Without context, it's an insult.In the context between two friends, when one makes a comment to joke, the other friend may answer "you asshole!" while laughing.

p sure telling someone to kill themselves is an awful thing to do regardless of context

After some years in Warhammer 40k games, the Ultramarines would ask kindly to softly put their guns to the orks heads and pull as slow as possible the trigger while they telling them with sad faces "I am sorry, I am sorry, I am sorry..."

For fuck sake. Grow some testicles [even women] and go with the natural flow of a game.

Nature Guardian:not in today's society which is equally overly sensitive and in need of the cruelest provocations.

Oh, OK, let's see if I can express my self better: "You fucking suck at providing any source to your words. I'm not even mad, I'm disappointed - that's quite a feat, when my expectations were literally rock bottom, but you somehow managed to go even lower. Go fucking kill yourself, you loser."

Is this sufficient?

Do you even know the difference between a prerecorded videogame message in an over-the-top dark comedy setting..... and insulting a specific person on a forum?

Because if you can't tell the difference, I can see why you'd want that stuff censored.

I've literally only been asking you to provide proof. You never did that, so I started using cues from what you said to encourage you. You said that you would do the opposite of people told you, so I told you to not provide that link. You said that society apparently needs "cruelest provocations" and I used harsh language.

If you can't tell the difference between asking to prove what you say is true and "wanting censorship", then I can very well see why you wouldn't want to provide such proof. Most likely because it doesn't exist.I'm eager to see how you'd try to twist this again into not providing proof: accuse me of attacking you or being "a hater"? Explain yet again how you like the game? Say how you won't talk to me because I don't deserve it or whatever?

If he wasn't attacked, then there is nothing wrong. It's their choice to make changes where they feel it's necessary. You can just make a new review discussing how their original dialogue was superior.

I actually think Nature bringing up southpark is excellent. Because the first seasons were fixated with poop jokes, gay jokes and relentless swearing. After a short time they realised shocking offense humour needs substance. Ditched a lot of the nonsense and started writing topical episodes mixing satire with pushing the boundaries and got much better (though milage still varies).

Kind of works against him since the product he's defending sounds like the "before" example though.

I guess we might as well end this entire thread with this: I am the only person on Earth who understood and enjoyed the humor of that videogame, and I am the only person ever who hates how they censored the game.

Why, I'm sure half of the people who claimed the humor was juvenile, are the same people who laugh at "kill all Jews" jokes.

I've literally only been asking you to provide proof. You never did that, so I started using cues from what you said to encourage you. You said that you would do the opposite of people told you, so I told you to not provide that link. You said that society apparently needs "cruelest provocations" and I used harsh language.

If you can't tell the difference between asking to prove what you say is true and "wanting censorship", then I can very well see why you wouldn't want to provide such proof. Most likely because it doesn't exist.I'm eager to see how you'd try to twist this again into not providing proof: accuse me of attacking you or being "a hater"? Explain yet again how you like the game? Say how you won't talk to me because I don't deserve it or whatever?

First off, you insist on confusing a forum conversation versus a media of entertainment with a specific style. Which means that, until you understand what we're talking about, discussing with you is pointless.

Second thing - it's censorship. Some people got offended by the suicide jokes and by the game calling you an incompetent idiot. The developers immediately removed those things.If this isn't censorship, what do you call it? Come on, humor me. I'm sure you're still going to deny the obvious.

Nazulu:If he wasn't attacked, then there is nothing wrong. It's their choice to make changes where they feel it's necessary. You can just make a new review discussing how their original dialogue was superior.

I agree with you here.Even if I angrily hate the influence the players had to a "vanilla" game, so the developers change it and make it less offensive for them, I respect that. For the right reason never the less.

However I will say it isn't about which version is better, but what was the original vision of the head developer.If the head developer wanted to be a stupid full-offensively 90[?] game, let it be.Perfect example: Dragons Crown sexy characters. Reason why the developers did this: He like tits.That all.

But I digress. Money are still in the end important, so I guess if this change had good results [more sales], then good for them.

However I will say it isn't about which version is better, but what was the original vision of the head developer.If the head developer wanted to be a stupid full-offensively 90[?] game, let it be.Perfect example: Dragons Crown sexy characters. Reason why the developers did this: He like tits.That all.

This is pretty much the point.

Imagine if the Dragon Crown developer had changed the tits size of the witch character, because some people were offended by it.

Nature Guardian:I guess we might as well end this entire thread with this: I am the only person on Earth who understood and enjoyed the humor of that videogame, and I am the only person ever who hates how they censored the game.

Because obviously anyone who didn't find it very good just didn't understand it, right? This is why no one is rallying to your side here.

Nature Guardian:First off, you insist on confusing a forum conversation versus a media of entertainment with a specific style.

What does that even mean? I've been asking you for proof and only that - I've yet to actually comment on the actual in any capacity. And "confusing"? My goal is quite literally the opposite - I want clarification.

Nature Guardian:Which means that, until you understand what we're talking about, discussing with you is pointless.

As predicted! Thank you for showing I was correct.

Also, I'm not asking you to discuss it with me - I am asking for proof. So far, this is literally the only thing I've asked you for.

Nature Guardian:Second thing - it's censorship. Some people got offended by the suicide jokes and by the game calling you an incompetent idiot. The developers immediately removed those things.If this isn't censorship, what do you call it? Come on, humor me. I'm sure you're still going to deny the obvious.

Let me remind you that the change was due to IGN's review. This is the entire crux of the thread.

And I'll humour you - it'd be censorship if the developers were FORCED to make the change against their will. Did that happen? I don't know. I LITERALLY DO NOT KNOW. It's because you have yet to prove it to me and everybody here.

With that said, let's remember two things: first, censorship is the suppression of free speech/expression. So, again, if the change was forced, then it's going to fall under it. However, let's also remember that free speech goes both ways - the developers are absolutely free to do whatever they want but the public is also absolutely free to express whatever thoughts they want about the game. This is very important - if people were not allowed to voice any negative opinion, then that would ALSO be censorship. If the devs willingly made changes, then that is certainly not censorship. It is, in fact, categorically part of their freedom of expression.

So, once again, I will repeat myself: show proof. This is what I have been asking from the very start. Show proof that the developers made the changes because of outside factors.

Wintermute:Wow, that's one of the ugliest games I've ever seen... and I played Papers, Please.

Also, someone posted a video here and I was skipping around it and the reviewer pretty much sums it up "Nothing about this offends me, I just think it's stupid." And it really is. It's just embarrassingly bad.

There's also a "meme" I guess? that says "I'LL KEEL YOUR FAAAACE!!" and some shitty sprites, and the character is some sharklady in a thong, what the hell is this... It's just trying so hard. Is this supposed to be cool, or funny? I mean, I don't care if the game is offensive, the T-Rex boner line isn't even offensive, it's just bad.

The guy complaining about the game in the video makes it funny. The game itself... I'm pretty sure I don't have PS+ anymore, and even if I did... no thanks.

So sure, if the developer thinks he can change some of this and make it better, why not?

So, since I LOVE the style of the game, and the sharklady in a thong is my favorite character, does it mean I am stupid? Juvenile?

No, it just means my tastes are not yours.

And it also means that this game is still incredibly stupid. It's cool dude, you can like stupid things, it's just you liking them doesn't make them not stupid anymore. And this game is powerfully stupid. Unimaginably stupid. It is, quite frankly, impressive at how stupid the developers have made this game. It has set new world records in volume of stupidity. It's stupidity is so potent that Spongebob Squarepants looks downright academic in comparison.

And it's totally fine that you like that.

...Gameplay's utter arse though. Guns are weightless and everything's so floaty, and the camera angle is an utter mess for effective combat. Probably should've put a little more ironing into that instead of writing all those 30+ second long monologues, good grief.